Tallman v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
• • Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court, Northern District; George W. Glarh, Judge; The statute, C. & M. Digest, § 2511, does not warrant a charge to the jury that the killing of the animal with a dangerous and deadly weapon will 'be presumed to have been done maliciously, and that proof of malice would not be required. The effect of this instruction and the •one following it is to shift the burden to the. defendant, leaving to the State only to prove the fact of the killing.
Read the full summary
• • Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court, Northern District; George W. Glarh, Judge; The statute, C. & M. Digest, § 2511, does not warrant a charge to the jury that the killing of the animal with a dangerous and deadly weapon will 'be presumed to have been done maliciously, and that proof of malice would not be required. The effect of this instruction and the •one following it is to shift the burden to the. defendant, leaving to the State only to prove the fact of the killing. Parsley v. State, 148 Ark. 518. The instruction with reference to the killing with a deadly weapon did not, as…
1Dissent
McCulloch, C. J.,
(dissenting.) The instruction condemned in the opinion of the majority is not technically correct, for no presumption of malice arises from the intentional killing of an animal. But the error was not prejudicial, for, under the statute, the killing need not be maliciously done in order to constitute a criminal offense. It is unlawful to kill, maim or wound an animal either “wilfully, maliciously or wantonly,” and either “with or without malice toward the owner. ’ ’
The statute formerly did not contain the word “wantonly,” nor the words “with or without malice toward the owner…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Snap v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1857
- Bennefield v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Chappell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1880
- Aubrey v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Thomas v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875